Talk:Therapeutic touch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed Merger with Healing Touch[edit]

Therapeutic Touch is not in Healing Touch and should not be merged. They are two separate modalities. Healing Touch would have its own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, December 20, 2005 (UTC)

They're just different franchises of the same hogwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, June 13, 2006 (UTC)

As I write this, Healing touch does not seem to have an article (it appears to have been subsequently deleted). That, together with the fact that the merger was proposed on Oct. 13 and no one has furthered it, I am going to remove the merger note. --TeaDrinker 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"two separate modalities"? Does the the first writer in this section care to define that in a verifiable physical science sense? If the definition of "modality" here is just mumbo-jumbo hogwash, then the distinction between two modalities is as well.Hubbardaie 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

By your logic Therpeutic Touch shouldn't even have its own page then. Since there is no hard scientific evidence to prove the concrete existence of either, why should they be merged or even have a page at all? -Bones —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I came looking for information specific to Healing Touch and was annoyed to find them overlapping. While it's nice that the pseudoskeptics find them to be the same, I was looking for actual information, you know, the stuff you expect to find in an encyclopedia. (I don't even care that this page is not written from a remotely neutral standpoint, I just wanted to know what differentiated the two modalities, even in theory.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The external links section is going out of hand[edit]

The external links section is going out of hand Kl4m 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Maybe calling these alternative therapies "meditation" would impart some credibility? When it gets to the point where my tax dollars will cover it, then maybe I'll open my eyes to it. Overall, I'll take a massage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments left in article[edit]

Bcttnmembership (talk · contribs) left these comments in the article; they're inappropriate for article space, so thought they'd be useful here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Ms. Rosa, I offer the following:

"To the Editor.—As a clinician, I am surprised that THE JOURNAL elected to address the important and controversial issue of Therapeutic Touch (TT) with such a simpleminded, methodologically flawed, and irrelevant study. The experiments described are an artificial demonstration that some number of self-described mystics were unable to "sense the field" of the primary investigator's 9-year-old daughter.1 This hardly demonstrates or debunks the efficacy of TT. The vaguely described recruitment method does not ensure or even suggest that the subjects being tested were actually skilled practitioners. More important, the experiments described are not relevant to the clinical issue supposedly being researched. Therapeutic Touch is not a parlor trick and should not be investigated as such. Rather, it is a therapeutic technique that may be discovered to require active involvement by a genuinely ill patient, as the authors themselves convolutedly acknowledge in their citation of Krieger's work. "

The above is extracted from the JAMA website, and anyone who reads Ms Rosa's study should do so with a grain of salt. I might add that there also are strict standards for Registered Practitioners of TT in British Columbia and most other Canadian provinces.

I recently published a book with John Wiley & Sons "How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business". I briefly discussed Emily Rosa's approach to make a point about experimental methods. Her method was completely scientifically sound in that if the subjects (the TT) could do what they claimed they could do, then this test would have had these results it. But they could not. Its also true that a placebo-controlled clinical trial proving the claims of TT would have been sufficient to refute Emily Rosa's claims. But although many TT's have tried to find flaws in Rosa's experiment, none have proposed an experiment that would prove their point. In fact, from what I've seen of the "refutations", none are apparently familiar with experimental methods at a mathematical level. What matters is that she tested something in a controlled, randomized way that - according to her subjects - they should have been able to do and with a sample size easily sufficent (if you do the math, that is) to demonstrate the results. What does not matter at all is that she was 9, she was the daughter of the primary investigator, whether someone labels the study "irrelevant" or whether there are "standards" for TT in Canada. If "qualified" TT would have done better, then why is the medical world still waiting for a clinical trial that would prove TT works when "standards" are met by the therapist?Hubbardaie 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Krieger study[edit]

This edit removed reference to the 1975 Krieger study. As she founded the modality, this study would seem to be of importance to the article out of proportion to its quality. Would anyone object to its (properly weighted) inclusion as part of a historical overview? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, though it might be better to put it in History, not scientific research. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm putting it back as part of origin. Initial work provided the basis for the modality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueryPhD (talkcontribs) 21:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting it back in again, after removal by someone who didn't read this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Theraputic Touch[edit]

I looked up this article expecting to find a discussion on theraputic touch, physical contact, stroking the skin to aid healing. Instead, I find an article debunking auras and the detection of auras. Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because some editors think they are the same.
Just a note, this (Healing touch, the one with the energy) is performed at Toronto's East York General Hospital, where it is an accepted practice amongst the staff. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The above point by Larry Holmgren is entirely valid. This is a failed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So do something about it, instead of bitching here. Famousdog (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So here it is 2012 and it appears no movement has been made toward balancing this article. To me it seems the thing it needs is a section, positioned before the studies refuting Thereaputic Touch, that goes into some depth about the techniques used and concepts behind it. I'll do some research, find some reliable references, and give it a shot. Suggestions welcome! Pleonic (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Separation From Quantum Touch[edit]

I looked up Quantum Touch and was surprised to find in wholly collapsed into this page. This is gross simplification. I propose the Quantum Touch page be filled out on its own or deleted entirely as to remove the false correlation. They could belong to the same class (and I believe they do), but upon inspection they claim a separate history and use different methods. The scientific community can not begin an effective investigation by premature classification. --Sankofa416 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see this article rewritten. It is tendentious. The author has an axe to grind. The basic criticism is based on an experiment that claims to disprove an ability that TT never claims: to sense the presence of a person through a screen. There are plenty of studies supporting the claims of TT. It seems to me that this article trivializes TT and is polemical rather than descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyde12000 (talkcontribs) 03:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have proof of your claim, "There are plenty of studies supporting the claims of TT." then cite them. SGerbic (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous Article[edit]

This is one strange article. I learned nothing about TT from it. I propose that this article should be rewritten. I agree with the above post that the author has taken an antagonistic position and appears to have an axe to grind. It would have been helpful if this article had offered actual information about how this modality works, how it is practiced, and how it positively impacts the lives of patients who receive it.

Additionally, the whole idea that the energy associated with TT or any other healing modality can be directly observed is preposterous. Science is but a single philosophy based on empiricism and reductionism. Science can only measure how something appears and how something appears to act. By its nature, it is a limited philosophy that currently measures only four known forms of energy, electromagnetism, strong and week nuclear forces, and gravity. These forces only make up 4.6% of the mass of the scientifically measurable universe (See Dark Matter). If I were writing to a topic that discusses subjective, non EMF related forces, then I would use a different perspective so as to avoid false conclusions. Instead of courting science, why not approach this topic using a more relevant philosophical model (there are dozens to choose from)?

Finally, the Amazing Randi, an internationally known escape artist now has a foundation and it is referenced in this article! I am sure that Randi, a master of smoke and mirrors, knows that you can't scientifically measure something that is by its nature subjective. This million dollar bet of his surely garnished him much publicity. If I were to bet a million dollars that no-one could scientifically prove happiness/god/patriotism/etc.. was real, I would retire with my same million dollars and have proven nothing. Yet these forces impact our lives in real and substantial ways each and every day. So, lets have another try at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumhands (talkcontribs) 01:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could always improve it or completely rewrite it! If you don't like it, do something about it :) -- Xxglennxx (talkcont.) 02:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm sick of people bitching and whining and not doing anything to improve these articles. Oh, and psychologists have developed many ways to quantify happiness and patriotism (although not God yet) so Quantumhands would lose his money fairly quickly. Famousdog (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added some external links to abstracts of published papers. Adrian-from-london (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I've found a paper which may be useful for expanding the article.

Occup Ther Int. 2009;16(1):44-56. Using non-contact therapeutic touch to manage post-surgical pain in the elderly, McCormack GL., PMID: 19222055 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

If anyone has an institutional / athens login to a research papers download service would you be able to write something about the research and results?
Thanks, Adrian-from-london (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) These references seem to be taken from nursing publications that are not peer-reviewed (Kansas Nurse is described as a "trade publication") or where peer-review is, shall we say, compromised (look at the editorial board of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine). Or they are non-systematic reviews published in nursing journals. By all means cite them as evidence that nurses think TT is great or cite the original research articles that these reviews refer to, but from a quick reading they don't seem to say anything original. My attitude is that we know that nurses think TT is great, we don't really need more citations to say that. Famousdog (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

<pedantry>Some nurses.</pedantry> But I agree that we need to be careful not to overstate things using weak sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
2over0 - You are, as usual, correct. My apologies. Famousdog (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this merged with articles on faith healing, etcetera?[edit]

Calling it something that sounds all clinical ("therapeutic") doesn't make it less ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's ridiculous. It's pure pseudoscientific nonsense, but per our inclusion criteria here it's notable enough to justify inclusion. You'll find lots of articles about nonsense here. If they are notable, they get included, and that's the way it should be. The mission of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge, including notable nonsense. As long as the article doesn't promote the nonsense we're okay. If it makes any biomedical statements, then we use WP:MEDRS sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
"Therapeutic touch" is it's actual name. It was once much talked about, taught and practiced by nurses, not just Cam healers. It met a rather sticky end in mainstream circles following Emily Rosa's efforts. Fainites barleyscribs 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


I just did some more searches for trademarks on TT. Interesting results.

I found a number of abandoned trademarks, but two which are still active.

U.S. Trademark 78,289,340 - to "Nurse Healers - Professional AssociatesInternational, Inc", for "Association services, namely, promoting the interest of nurses and promoting public awareness of the need for standards and credentials to practice the art of alternative medicine"


U.S. Trademark 75,576,886 - to "Bon Vital Incorporated" for "Body oils, skin cream, skin lotion, face cream and face lotion".

I don't see that either of these are worth mentioning in the article and certainly don't support the proposition that TT should be capitalised (except in its acronym form!) since the actual practice of TT is not covered by a trademark. GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Therapeutic Touch" was registered in Canada in 2003. Canadian Trade-marks database, Registration No. TMA580182. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueryPhD (talkcontribs) 07:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, Reliablility, Scholarly, Due Weight[edit]

WP:NPOV says: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

WP:Fringe theories says: all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. According to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health,[1] "The 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which included a comprehensive survey of CAM use by Americans, showed that approximately 38 percent of adults use CAM." This suggests that there is a significant minority view about CAM, which includes Therapeutic Touch as a modality.

WP:Fringe theories also says: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the <ital>relevant academic community</ital>. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. <ital>italics mine</ital>

Like it or not, the "relevant academic community" for Therapeutic Touch is in faculties of complementary and alternative medicine across the country.

WP:Verifability says: ...people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. .... When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight.

WP:Scholarship says: ...some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.

In science, we do studies and say this does/doesn't work under these conditions. That does not mean that under other conditions this won't/might work. Read the limitations sections that should be in every well-written scientific article.

Recent publications in peer-reviewed journals relating to CAM are, therefore, reliable sources under the this definition and ought to be given [WP:due] weight.QueryPhD (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

re WP:ReliableSources: I have yet to find a reliable source that claims Therapeutic Touch can cure disease. Not sure where the American Cancer Society got that info to make a statement its article just quoted on the Therapeutic Touch pageQueryPhD (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC).

It took me a couple of minutes to google these:
As with many other forms of alt-med, there are strange attempts at logic-chopping around the meaning of words such as "heal" or "treat" or "cure" which I presume is (intentionally or unintentionally) an attempt at getting round many developed countries' laws against pretending to treat patients with something which won't actually make them better. Let's be clear: Some folk think that therapeutic touch helps make people better; when such claims are made, we need reliable sources. Not in-universe sources. Of course if we only look at what TT people say, we'll get a very clear picture that TT is effective against illness. And if we only look at what colonic practitioners say, we'll get a very clear picture that arse-hosing is effective against illness. And if we only look at what sangomas say, muti is very effective against illness...

bobrayner (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Terminology in TT circles has changed, perhaps since someone realized there was a problem with some usage; does not use "treat" now, other than with those who slip back into old verbiage or have not updated their websites. Nowhere should they use "cure". I've never heard or read anything from a bonafide TT practitioner or organization that says TT can cure. Help or heal is still appropriate usage even though heal has a different connotation than cure in this sense.

The JAMA article was written in the late 1990s and, with its own flaws (small sample size--a reason in itself that the article should have been dismissed from the JAMA review process, context of a school science project which could easily influence outcome, etc.), not the least of which is that it did not measure the effects of TT, is still hailed as the reason that TT does not work.

Re: "Almost any condition is made worse by stress and pain so by producing a rapid relaxation response through the use of Therapeutic Touch, your body will heal and recover faster." Agree there's a problem with this line. It should not say "will". It would be more correct to read something like: Almost any condition is that is made worse by stress and pain may be helped by producing a rapid relaxation repsonse. Through the use of Therapeutic Touch in these situations, your body may heal and recover faster.

"to assist cancer patients to deal with side effects of therapy and to boost the immune system" doesn't say heal, treat or cure cancer. "to assist in recovery from addictions, to assist in pre and post natal care" does not say heal, treat or cure....indeed, this line doesn't say much of anything. "to calm anxiety and aggression in patients suffering from various forms of dementia, to calm and support palliative care patients and their families" does not say heal, treat or cure.

Furthermore, most TT practitioners are not and do not claim to be medical practitioners (i.e. they do not claim to practice medicine), although some MDs use TT in their practices. Many TT practitioners are nurses who use TT as part of their nursing practice. Many are not nurses or MDs. Morever, non ought to be making any claim of curing medical conditions.

Nevertheless, as evidenced by info in my previous post and regardless of controversy, the significant minority views about CAM suggest that published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. ....and with your posts from [1] and [2], I now take bonafide Therapeutic Touch organizations to be considered as reliable sources that should be represented as fairly as Quackwatch which has been touted as a reliable source. Thank you for this.

More logic chopping over the meaning of "cure" and "heal" and "treat" and so on? Meh. Medical professionals are still using it on patients and still seem to think that it helps make patients better, in which case we really need reliable sources? bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, we should be using what high quality secondary sources say, not what individual practitioners may or may not believe. Yobol (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Let me restate what's written on Wikipedia WP:Fringe Theories: all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. And,whether you like it or not, CAM support represents a significant-minority. Therefore, because of WP:Scholarship, CAM journals are justifiably permitted to be WP:Reliable sources on the Therapeutic Touch page. WP:MEDRS says reliable third party published sources (peer-reviewed journals count) WP:MEDRS says ideal source is next paragraphs it also says "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine."QueryPhD (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY. The sources you are attempting to add are primary studies and thus are not acceptable; you need review articles. Sædontalk 02:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So explain how the JAMA article is acceptable. It is a primary study.QueryPhD (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about but it's not really relevant to the sources you want to introduce; yes other stuff exists but if you think there's a problem with a JAMA source then you should start a new section about it because it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not your sources are WP:PRIMARY. Sædontalk 03:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You can sparingly use a few of your best primary sources if you have secondary sources to interpret/review the data they provide. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Pleonic (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pen and Teller "Bullshit" episode covers TT and interviews Emily Rosa[edit]

Pen and Teller have thoroughly covered Therapeutic Touch, including showing video of Dolores Krieger making her unsubstantiated claims, interviewing Emily Rosa and Stephen Barrett, MD of Quackwatch, and showing video of Emily Rosa's experiment that she performed when she was 9 years old, which proved that Therapeutic Touch was Bullshit.

Search YouTube for Penn and Teller New Age Medicine Bullshit, and jump to 17 minutes 1 second. (The youtube URL is blocked from posting to the talk page. Is it allowed to put a reference to that youtube video on the page itself?)

The "New Age Medicine" episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! deserves mention in this article, because it includes a good summary of TT and includes both historic video and original interviews with people already mentioned in this article.

It's already mentioned in the "Appearances" section of Emily Rosa's page.

It could go into an "In Popular Culture" section, or it could be worked into part of the existing text, like the "Scientific Investigation" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xardox (talkcontribs) 14:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Dolores Krieger's Ig Nobel Prize[edit]

Here is something fascinating I learned from Emily Rosa's page, about her gratitude to Dolores Krieger for leaving basic research in TT for a 9-year-old child to do:

Keynoted the 1998 Ig Nobel Ceremonies at Harvard, and accepted the Award in Science Education for an absent Dolores Krieger, who "could not or would not attend" herself. Krieger, a nursing professor and co-inventor of Therapeutic Touch, was cited "for demonstrating the merits of therapeutic touch, a method by which nurses manipulate the energy fields of ailing patients by carefully avoiding physical contact with those patients." In her keynote, Rosa expressed her gratitude that Dr. Krieger had, for two decades, left basic research in TT for her to do. The next day, Rosa delivered an "Ig Nobel" Address at MIT.

It could go into the "Origin" section that quotes Dr. Krieger, to balance out its bias towards TT. Or it could go after the "Origin" section in a "Demise" section that discusses how TT fell in popularity as a result of the nine-year-old girl's research, as described on Emily Rosa's "Therapeutic Touch study / Reaction" subsection:

David J Hufford, felt the study presented ethical problems because the authors of the study enlisted the cooperation of the TT operators by presenting the study as just a "fourth grade science fair project." Hufford felt that this was failure of full disclosure and deceit.[2] But Hufford's analysis did not acknowledge that the first round of tests was only a fourth grade science fair project done with no thought of future publication. Publication was suggested by Dr. Stephen Barrett months afterward when he learned that the study had taken place.[3] The second round of tests was done at the request of Scientific American Frontiers, with the participants fully aware that they were being videotaped. No subsequent experiment has been undertaken overturning her findings.[4]

Xardox (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for positive impact[edit]

Yarbol continues to erase my evidenced based journals on the positive impact to therapeutic touch, including the new 2015 scientific journal article showing TT decreasing metastatic cancer cells. This is blatant censorship. The line that Yarbol continues to place in the introductory body stating "the American Cancer Association does not recognize TT having any effect" has no credible source. When I click on his citation of that line I get an error page. That is why I deleted it. I did not delete any of the other skeptic's point because they have a right to their opinion, even if I do not agree with it, but you need to find evidence to back it up. The first line stating that TT is a "pseudoscience" is debatable and therefore should not be noted as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixie6089 (talkcontribs) 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the dead link, I replaced it by an URL. Ping Yobol (not Yarbol) for further explanation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review our guideline on reliable sources for medical claims. The source you are describing is a primary study done on animals, and being used to debunk secondary sources which raises doubts about the efficacy of TT. MEDRS explicitly forbids using sources like this. Yobol (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Pixie6089, when messages and warnings are left on your talk page, you are expected to read them, digest them, learn from them, and hopefully respond. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 01:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"YOBOL": I did review the guidelines on reliable sources for medical claims and have concluded that 9-year-old Emily Rosa's school project published in a 1998 medical journal for the feeble argument of a Western-medicine-only mentality is hardly congruent with Wikipedia's requirements in reliable sources as "recent" or "reliable" (see Wikipedia's own quote below). With consideration of the allowance of using sources on their TT page such as Singh & Ernst's Trick or Treatment, Quackwatch, and outdated sources originating from a child that did not actually study the whole procedure of TT, along with tolerance for censorship of sources that challenge the closed-minded thinking of the article writer, it is obvious that Wikipedia aligns with the biased viewpoint of which small men have poured countless energy into blocking the truth of numerous evidenced based studies that have proven TT's efficacy over the last three decades and will continue to be more and more evident in future decades. The evidence will only leave Wikipedia with the image of being "behind," and notable for what kind of source it actually is: basically like "yahoo answers" made to look like a supported article. Only Yahoo Answers does not censor others so Yahoo Answers would be more reliable to get a general consensus that "reflects current knowledge" (again see quote bellow). Energy healing is proven, free, and a major source of controversy because of people like those that have been allowed to monopolize the Wikipedia article and Wikipedia themselves for favoring these people's biasness. I venture to say hipocrisy is in the making on Wikipedia's part when siding with these writers of censorship. As you can see when observing the following quote from their own source, and then viewing the sources on the TT article:

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information.[1] For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflect current knowledge" (Guideline on Reliable Sources for Medical Claims).

To the volunteers that have responded to my email about correcting the name "Yarbol" to "Yobol," thank you. I am so sure this is as important as correcting censorship and obvious biased articles. It is obvious that yobol has an edge on editing the article, considering after my edit it was replaced back to the original biased article I was trying to correct within seconds. Not humanly possible. Not by fair standards anyways. Yobol, I am not really sure what you mean in your comment "is a primary study done on animals, and being used to debunk secondary sources which raises doubts about the efficacy of TT," because the source concluded what it concluded: the efficacy in decreasing metastatic breast cancer cells in mice. It is used to show benefits of TT. My arictle that was erased helps the argument that TT reduces cancer cells, it's a reliable source (a CAM medical journal), and it's recent. But it was allowed to be erased. Hmmm, I wonder why you don't want it on Wikipedia's TT article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixie6089 (talkcontribs) 21:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Pixie6089:, you say "Energy healing is proven". Do you have any source to back up that claim?--McSly (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

McSly: thank you for the opportunity to source these again. I had attempted to place these sources on the article but Wikipedia allowed the last editor to completely delete them. Here are three sources I did not have to dig very much to find: Effects of therapeutic touch on blood hemoglobin and hematocrit level, Effects of therapeutic touch on anxiety, vital signs, and cardiac dysrhythmia , The effectiveness of therapeutic touch on pain, depression and sleep in patients with chronic pain

@Pixie6089: spelling an editor's name is important because doing so sends them an automated message. Getting snarky over this isn't helping your case. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So sorry for the snarkiness. I wouldn't want to offend you or anybody in this highly credible opinionated article Wikipedia has bestowed on the public. I posted my supporting articles above, but it would not surprise me if they were allowed to be deleted. Censorship is much more tolerated here than snarkiness. The email your volunteers have sent me was not at all snarky, so the hypocrisy, again, astounds me.


  1. ^ Empty citation (help) 
  2. ^ Hufford, David J (2003), "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists.", J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2): 198–212, doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2003.tb00081.x. 
  3. ^ L Rosa, E Rosa, L Sarner, S Barrett (April 1, 1998). "A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch". Journal of the American Medical Association. 279 (13): 1005–1010. doi:10.1001/jama.279.13.1005. PMID 9533499. Retrieved May 8, 2011. 
  4. ^ Ernst E, Singh S (2008), Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial, Bantam Press, pp. 267–269 

Skeptics and non-traditional techniques branded as "Pseudoscience"[edit]

Collapse pointless

Skeptics have glommed onto the term pseudoscientific which was coined to describe psychotherapy. They claim to be unable to prove, or claim to disprove certain techniques. Unfortunately, for everyone concerned, most of the "professional skeptics" claims are equally pseudoscientific. The "tests" that the skeptics used are without exception invalid due to the fact that they remove the technique from its natural settings and then expect it to preform under unnactural conditions. This is like saying that the act of sex does not exist in most people. They would claim that people report having sex in the privacy of their bedrooms and enjoy the act. They then want to test if sex is real, so they put the couple in a laboratory and have group of scientists watch them try to have sex. They can't do it and so the scientists claim that the concept of sex is pseudoscientific and that sex does not exist as it cannot be repeated in the laboratory. The so called tests are almost without excpetion designed to ensure that the claimed effects cannot occur. All tests of so called traditional pseudosciences are invalid due to this without exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ideologic propaganda[edit]

This is an article about a healing technique that consists basically in critics to the technique.

It works much more as an ideologic propaganda than as an informative article. If Wikipedia wants to have a session about "possible misleadings healing techniques" and put this as one of them, that would be acceptable. But creating an article about a healing technique only to criticize it is insane for any serious and responsible encyclopedia.

There are subjects which of course arise polemics, and even in those matters it's good to have an equilibrium. But a healing technique is not a polemical subject, it's just that: a healing technique. It would be enough to put a warning "this technique is not supported by medical comunity, etc" if we want to follow guidelines that the medical community decides what can be called "healing" in the encylopedia. But making an article that states of being about the subject only to criticize it makes Wikipedia looks petty small and unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Note that I have relocated the misplaced material which I found at the top of this page to this (new) section. RobP (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)